April 02, 2004
PILGER TRUMPS CLARKE
In comments, blogger For Now uncovers a Richard Clarke-smiting article written by John Pilger in December 2001:
The twin towers attacks provided Bush's Washington with both a trigger and a remarkable coincidence. Pakistan's former foreign minister Niaz Naik has revealed that he was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, was then travelling in central Asia, already gathering support for an anti-Afghanistan war "coalition".
What does this mean? For Now explains:
Pilger has evidence that the Bush Administration was MOVING BEFORE 9/11/01 TO ACT AGAINST THE TALIBAN. Pilger, without knowing it, counters Clarke’s charges that the Bush Administration didn’t take Al Qaeda seriously enough!
He should be forced to testify. Tell us what you know, Pilger! Bring on the battle of the totally credible anti-Bush book hawkers!
Posted by Tim Blair at April 2, 2004 04:21 AMHah, thats great. In the sense that it refutes one of the Left's biggest arguments. Alas, it won't stop them from making new ones that make as little sense as the first ones...
Posted by: FH at April 2, 2004 at 04:25 AMIf this is true, why hasn't it come out until now? Why isn't the administration using this? I fear that Kerry may pull an upset over Bush if the administration doesnt start defending itself and the war the way we know they could and should.
Posted by: Oktober at April 2, 2004 at 05:03 AMWell, it might not be true. This is Pilger we're talking about, after all.
Posted by: tim at April 2, 2004 at 05:07 AMWould love to see the look on Pilgers face when this finally gets to him. Top stuff ForNow, enjoy those 40 virgins Tim's sending round to your house.
Posted by: max power at April 2, 2004 at 05:32 AMHey, don't diss my man Pilger! I've developed a strange respect for his conspirazoid theories. For example, look at who he blames for al Qaeda:
At Brzezinski's urging, in July 1979, [President Jimmy] Carter authorised $500 million to help set up what was basically a terrorist organisation. The goal was to lure Moscow, then deeply troubled by the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in the Soviet central Asian republics, into the “trap” of Afghanistan, a source of the contagion...
I recently interviewed Brzezinski in Washington and he vehemently denied that his strategy precipitated the rise of al Qaeda: he blamed terrorism on the Russians.As James Taranto would say, "Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002." Posted by: Bruce Rheinstein at April 2, 2004 at 05:59 AM
Thanks for linking to my blog too, Tim! Wish I’d updated it since the end of 2003. I’m a gittin’ lazy. And even if Pilger was quoting a Pakistani general from his dreams (Pilger’s or the general’s), do I still get the 40 virgins?
And I found the Pilger paragraph because of Lawrence’s link to a December 2001 entry of Tim’s, where Lawrence finds the first use anywhere of Fisk’s name as an action or agent.
We both won, Tim!
===================================
Tim, I still say that you were the first to coin "fisk" as it's used today.
Posted by: Lawrence at April 1, 2004 at 05:58 AM
----------------
Lawrence’s link leads to a Tim posting which concludes:
Where is that gang of bloodthirsty Fiskers when you need them?
posted by Tim Blair at 12/19/2001 11:00:33 AM
The link leads to something that I had to register myself at the Guardian in order to read!
Independent journalist excuses attackers
Jessica Hodgson
Monday December 10, 2001
The Independent's distinguished Middle East correspondent, Robert Fisk, who was stoned by an angry Afghan refugees at the weekend, has said he would have done just as they had if the boot had been on the other foot.
[etc.]
Posted by: ForNow at April 1, 2004 at 09:08 AM
===================================
(Then I went back & looked more closely at Tim’s quote of Pilger & realized its current relevance.)
So—Fisk stoned, the word “fisker” formed off Fisk’s name by Tim, & now Pilger’s prophetic defense of Bush—all in one glorious knot! It’s the event that keeps on giving.
Posted by: ForNow at April 2, 2004 at 06:07 AMP.S. Clarification: Tim’s quote of Pilger insinuating that the US was behind the 9/11 attacks in order to justify an already planned war against Afghanistan, was that about which Tim added in conclusion “Where is that gang of bloodthirsty Fiskers when you need them?”
Posted by: ForNow at April 2, 2004 at 06:18 AMSure, sure. But any rank and file card-carrying Leftie will tell you that the plan to invade Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11 was all about OIL.
Remember Occidental Petroleum?
Okay, so Pilger claims a quote from Pakistani foreign foreign minister Niaz Naik, not from a Pakistani general. Am I supposed to be a superaccurate journalist like John Pilger?
But to make up for that & for my overexcited weighing down of this thread, I’ve looked & FOUND SOME MORE!!!!
US 'planned attack on Taleban'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
BBC, Tuesday, 18 September, 2001, 11:27 GMT 12:27 UK, By the BBC's George Arney
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
[Photocaption:] Russian troops were on standby
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
And the story goes on for six more paragraphs.
Now I have to look & see whether I can find anything about Naik subsequently retracting his claims or being discredited, etc.
Posted by: ForNow at April 2, 2004 at 07:11 AMWell I did a Google search on
"Niaz Naik" Afghanistan retracted OR discredited
& turned up mostly leftist sites commenting on the BBC story. I have some things to do today, so I’ll have to run along soon. Note that there’s nothing in the BBC story itself about oil.
I don’t remember this story from that time. If I noticed it back then, my reaction was probably something like, they were planning it already? Good!
Posted by: ForNow at April 2, 2004 at 07:43 AMNo, I don’t think I saw or heard of BBC story back then. And I probably would have thought about it & asked myself do I trust a Pakistani government official or ex-official as a source? Well, face it, they’re hard to trust.
Posted by: ForNow at April 2, 2004 at 07:48 AMA friend of mine knew a Pakistani whose family back home had found him a prospective bride. This meant that the entire families of both had to meet & get to know each other. It turned out the prospective bride’s family were politicians, it was a political family. The prospective groom’s family for that reason decided against the marriage—they regard politicians as criminals, real criminals. Apparently this view is common in Pakistan.
Niaz Naik, source for the BBC story, is a Pakistani former foreign minister.
Posted by: ForNow at April 2, 2004 at 07:54 AMForNow. How depressingly shameful that you are not a super accurate mega-journalist like Bilge... err... Pilger.
Oh. You admitted a tiny error then went on to find more stuff.
Blast.
Definitely proves you are not Pilger, I guess. I have never seen him do that.
I am sure that you are utterly crushed by this revelation.
Seriously, now, interesting material you have located. What it indicates beyond the idea that the soft-left has long existed in a world of self-mirroring world of distorted illusions and warped understandings of reality I don't know, though. We did already know their world-view bore little relevance to reality.
Cheers: MarkL
Posted by: MarkL at April 2, 2004 at 08:02 AM*ACK* What's this about Occidental Petroleum? I hadn't heard that particular LLL theory... I work on a hill that's owned by Oxy.. in fact I'm here now. Are they anything like the evil Halliburton?
Posted by: Lydia at April 2, 2004 at 09:04 AMPerfect.
Few things more joyous than watching an LLL implosion.
See this, happening simultaneously:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0413/smith.php
Posted by: Sergio at April 2, 2004 at 09:45 AMI’m crushed, crushed that Pilger is Pilger & I’m not.
The article by George Smith is very funny. Tim posted it under “Lefty Makes New Friends.”
Hmm, from www.DrudgeReport.com right now:
In an effort to defend Rice in advance of her public hearing, White House tonight will release some specific wording of a 2001 presidential directive that directed Pentagon planning for military strike against al-Qaida and Taliban, supporting Rice argument that Bush admin was planning tougher effort against terrorist group... MORE...
Posted by: ForNow at April 2, 2004 at 09:55 AMOccidental Petroleum is a company with close ties to Al Gore.
Posted by: Crank at April 2, 2004 at 10:13 AMWell of course Bush was planning to invade Afghanistan in summer, 2001. He needed to get the Taliban out of the way so Unocal could build a gas pipeline across Afghanistan. But he knew he couldn't just go around invading other countries, so he used his family's contacts with the Sauds, CIA and Bin Laden families to contact Osama Bin Laden, and arrange a Reichstag-like terrorist attack on New York to justify invading Afghanistan and to silence the media from questioning Bush's REAL motives.
And the sheeple bought it hook, line and sinker. Clarke finally woke up and smelled the coffee after Bush and his gang decided to steal Iraq's oil as well, and bravely came forward with an inside true account that the corporate-controlled media refuses to address.
Posted by: Moonbat_One at April 2, 2004 at 10:19 AMUm, hello! This is John Pilger we're talking about!
Doesn't this make Clarke more credible?
Posted by: Mork at April 2, 2004 at 10:31 AMUm, hello! try reading the thread. Nobody took Pilger seriously.
Posted by: ForNow at April 2, 2004 at 10:38 AMOkay, one, maybe two, took it seriously. Not everybody is familiar with Pilger. Then Tim weighed in.
Posted by: ForNow at April 2, 2004 at 10:40 AMThe leftist conspiracy-types were citing this as evidence that Bush knew about the attacks prior to 9-11; not sure if that was the take Pilger embraced.
Posted by: Pat Curley at April 2, 2004 at 10:41 AMLydia, the now dead CEO(?) of OP was a commie, IIRC.
Posted by: Sandy P. at April 2, 2004 at 11:04 AMSandy P.
What does IIRC, mean? (forgive me, I'm new to politics and blogs)
I didn't know that about the CEO. I knew that they had business dealings with SH back in the '80's. So, am I getting this?... Al Snore invented.. I mean, had close ties w/Oxy, who's head honcho was a commie, and Oxy had somethin goin on in Aghanistan? I guess I'm not gettin the point 'melk' was makin.
Posted by: Lydia at April 2, 2004 at 11:14 AMHead honcho was Armand Hammer. Did business with Soviet leaders. Befriended American politicians & a President or two. Really unsavory guy.
Posted by: ForNow at April 2, 2004 at 11:20 AMNiaz Naik's statements (which became the basis of the equally discredited Unocal-conspiracy-theory book from France called *Bin Laden: The Hidden Truth*) are almost totally without merit. As it came out, Naik's meeting was with *former* US officials, at a low level talk, and the military threat was hypothetical at best with no specified date:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/08/15/forbidden_truth/index.html
"They [the former US officials] all insist no military threat was issued to the Taliban... 'The military threat, as I recall it, was absolutely confined to statements by people on our side that the U.S. government was still examining evidence with regard to the Cole and that if the government satisfied itself that Osama bin Laden was responsible, you could predict a military response almost with certainty,' Simons says. 'Nothing more was said in the meetings, and I was in all the meetings.'"
In seeking to discredit Clarke, it's not a good idea to reach for even more discredited sources-- especially when it means accepting premises that lead to far wilder accusations than Clarke has ever made.
Posted by: James at April 2, 2004 at 11:34 AMSomeone should provide a list of common online conversational abbreviations.
IIRC - as defined
IMHO - in my humble opinion
OT - off topic
IANAL - I am not a lawyer
...
Thanks, ForNow and Moonbat. I just got off the phone w/an Oxy geologist (we're having well problems.. dang it all.. :))) and I was tempted to mention this.. ha! NOT.
Bang! It just hit me. A long time ago I saved something that was written on a Yahoo message board by a guy sounding like he was an agent at one time. (I've since moved on to blogs, amen and hallelujah)
"Did you know that the Clinton Administration gave Occidental Petroleum exemptions to anti-terrorism laws prohibit[ing] U.S. companies from doing business with state sponsors of terrorism, which was likely to do with Occidentals long history of being in bed with Al Gore and his father?"
I always wondered how true it was. Now I know. (sorry for OT)
Posted by: Lydia at April 2, 2004 at 12:05 PMOT: Does this qualify as chutzpah? Someone in trouble for cheque fraud gave a fraudulent cheque to the lawyer.
Posted by: Andjam at April 2, 2004 at 01:21 PMBut you know the funny thing, James?
I thought I briefly saw that a couple of other people were in a/some of the same meeting(s) as Clarke and they remember some details differently.
Unless there's notes, is it a he/he/he/she said???
Or we were rattling some sabres/sabers?
Posted by: Sandy P. at April 2, 2004 at 02:20 PMMy head hurts from reading this stuff (I didn't read it all really and just scrolled down). It's Friday which means drinking time is upon us. Not that I advocate binge drinking in any way. (Unless actions speak louder than words.) Go Eagles and the Colliwobbles will lose again - and yes Tim I got money on it. heh heh heh
Posted by: Razor at April 2, 2004 at 03:30 PMYou are serious? Are you so desperate for ways to smear Clarke that you are now using JOHN PILGER as your evidence? Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel! Listen up, shitheads: Clarke's credible. Gettit?. You won't beat him, cos he's got the shit on Bush. Better to just ignore him. He's a fucking snake. You push him too much, it all goes south. All of it, and you can takweTHAT to the Bank. Use your brains: He was their counter-terrrorism guy for FOUR administrations. Do you think for a second he's gonna just roll over? That he hasn't got files and shit stashed every fucking place?
Fucking Amateurs!
You realise we are at war, and you are making fucking jokes?
President Bush is pretty much fucked if Pilger is the best you people could do.
I thought it was funny after the No-WMD fiasco that y'all pretended it was "all done for the little Iraqi orphans" (the irony of having to sing Kumbaya rather than admit you were wrong must have been awful for you), but this is seriously pathetic!
Look, we don't have to give a shit about Iraqi orphans, and we don't have to apologise for the President's shit. WE ARE AT WAR. Being at war means you NEVER say sorry - that's what fucked us in 'nam, that's what'll fuck us in Iraq.
If you can't do more harm than good Tim, then at least have the good sense to shut the fuck up and let the Big Kids speak. Fuck!
If Clarke's evidence sticks (and except in this self-congratulatory kndergarten of yours, believe me - it's sticking so far), you are going to have to do better than that, numbnuts. A whole lot better.
Gee, I guess you must know what you're talking about if you come on so butch.
Wartime is one of the most fertile periods for jokes because people need a laugh. Surely a four letter warrior like you should know that.
Richard Clarke may or may not have the shit on Bush. But he is making like Oprah, which is a bit suspect in a serious intelligence review. Counter-terror spooks are pretty chilly guys as a rule, and if tthey started apologising as Richard Clarke has, they'd never stop. Intelligence gathering is a continuum and policy is based on evaluation. Anyone who says he knew what was going down before 9/11 is a liar. It's hindsight, something bureaucrats are familiar with since they so love witchhunts, buckpassing and backstabbing.
Posted by: Dave F at April 2, 2004 at 07:34 PMGee, Endgame, you sure sound excited. I thought I had a reasonable grasp of English, but I've no idea what point you're trying to make. Take a few deep breaths and a valium, think about cute cuddly fluffy bunnies or something, then try again.
Posted by: squawkbox at April 2, 2004 at 07:36 PM"Gee, I guess you must know what you're talking about if you come on so butch."
Come on so Butch? Holy crap, sorry to offend you, I didn't realise. Don't ask, don't tell right? The modern army and all. I got no problem with that. I saw this guy once, in a dress, took four guys to hold him down...
Anyway, what's this all got to do with anything? Point is, Pilger's a loser and Clarke's a loser. Listening to you people jacking off 'cos one loser doesn't agree wit the other loser is nauseating, mostly because you're backing the wrong loser.
I'll break it down: Pilger is a freak. He has no credibility. Clarke is a guy with a hand-written letter from the POTUS commending him on his service and all that shit. Clarke has credibility. Worse, Clarke is probably telling the truth (WAR is the perfect time for splitting hairs and hoping things go our way, right DaveF? - "think positive" is a great plan, really, I mean it...), and he can almost certainly prove it. Do you seriously think he'd come wandering out of the woods with nothing in his mag and start hurling this shit around?
"But he is making like Oprah, which is a bit suspect in a serious intelligence review."
I like the way you think - but you need to go further. Doesn't all this "soft target" stuff seem too good to be true? Richard Clarke suddenly crying like a baby? Post-book, he was a fucking snake - the spookiest nastiest backstabbin spooky cold-eyed bastid ever. Now he's Mr Wonderful. Is something wrong with this picture?
Spell it out? M'pleasure: President Bush is a poker player - he lets oponents make mistakes - over-extend themselves, over-play their hands. Then he goes for their jugular (it's a vein Dave, relax). I think Clark is doing this to Bush, and you soft-ons are helping him: "yeah, Pilger is just the evidence we need to bring Clarke's house down" - Give me a break!
Do you understand my english now, sweetie?
Posted by: Endgame at April 2, 2004 at 09:15 PM
I don't trush Pilger but imagine if he were asked to testify by the 9/11 commission (he is not an American and thus may not be sopeoned). Say he refused. Then his article might stand as is and be used to defend Bush. If he did show up then he has to admit being a liar in order to help Clarke.
Posted by: Junkyard God at April 2, 2004 at 09:46 PMEndgame. Nobody in a postion to do so is going to use a pilger article for anything regarding the 9/11 commission. Clarke is already on the record with self contrictions and is not as credible as you would make him out to be. In his own sworn testimony he said there was nothing Bush could have done to prevent 9/11 even if he did everything Clarke NOW thinks should have been done. The American people will take this information and the ones who hate Bush will still hate Bush and the ones who support him will still support him.
Posted by: Junkyard God at April 2, 2004 at 09:56 PMWho's trying to discredit Clark? We just want to see how Pilger handles getting death threats from his best friends.
I like:
PIAPS
popularized on "lucianne.com".
PIAPS = Pig in a pants suit = Hillary Clinton
Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at April 2, 2004 at 11:24 PMJust heard on the morning news that as of 08 Sep 01 a presidential directive was given to Rummy to prepare for military action against Taliban in Afganistan. Fox News, I think (surprise!). Yes, Mr. Bush is a poker player, and has made a good living at letting others overplay their hand. Can't wait to see what he dumps on Kerry, if Kerry fails to soil himself, that is.
Posted by: Doc at April 2, 2004 at 11:51 PMApparently Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott thinks highly of the contemplated pre-9/11 attack on Afghanistan by the Bush administration. He even posts a story that includes this passage:
"The Guardian (26 September 2001) reported that in July 2001, a group of interested parties met in a Berlin hotel to listen to a former State Department official, Leo Coldren, as he passed on a message from the Bush administration that "the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action...the chilling quality of this private warning was that it came-according to one of those present, the Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik-accompanied by specific details of how Bush would succeed..." Four days earlier, the Guardian had reported that Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military action against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington...[which] raises the possibility that bin Laden was launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US threats."
Oh, the irony of it all.
Posted by: Barney at April 3, 2004 at 01:11 AMI think Clark is doing this to Bush, and you soft-ons are helping him: "yeah, Pilger is just the evidence we need to bring Clarke's house down" - Give me a break!
Do you understand my english now, sweetie?
Read the last line of the post again, Endgame.
Bring on the battle of the totally credible anti-Bush book hawkers!
And now I point you to the wonderful site called Dictionary.com, which I am sure that you are aware of, because you are apparently a Master of English.
Look up the definition for IRONY.
There! Chew on it for awhile. Think a little. Don't let your stubby little hands touch the keyboard. Just take a breath, drink some koolaid from your sippy cup and have some more pudding. Good, hmm?
Now, I'm sure the thought is buzzing around your fertile mind like a fly on dung right now "Hey, maybe this whole thing about Pilger is a really absurd joke that I'm just not getting. Maybe I should shut up more."
Yes. You should. Have a cookie.
Posted by: Sortelli at April 3, 2004 at 02:01 AMSGW and Lydia... here ya' go:
Usenet Acronyms
HTH!
Posted by: Old Grouch at April 3, 2004 at 03:20 AM>>Gee, I guess you must know what you're talking about if you come on so butch.
Seemed to work for Bush -- at least for a while.
Posted by: Andrew | BYTE BACK at April 3, 2004 at 05:56 AMEndgame wrote: Clarke is a guy with a hand-written letter from the POTUS commending him on his service and all that shit. Clarke has credibility.
Big deal. Bush's gardner probably has one of those too. Besides, that was written before Clarke flipped and started singing an entirely different tune, blaming Bush and praising Clinton. Clarke has no credibility. He's just hawking a book and profiting off the deaths of 9/11 victims. Why else did he move up the book's release date to coincide with his testimony before the committee? Talk about amatuer.
Posted by: Lawrence at April 3, 2004 at 07:04 AMOh, and the handwritten "letter" Endgame mentioned was actually a two or three sentence note written on a 4 by 8 card.
Posted by: Lawrence at April 3, 2004 at 07:06 AMLook up the definition for IRONY.
That's like goldy or bronzey isn't it?
Posted by: Quentin George at April 3, 2004 at 07:48 AMClarke is a guy with a hand-written letter from the POTUS commending him on his service and all that shit. Clarke has credibility.
Why people who think Bush is too incompetent to even piss straight suddenly think a hand-written letter from him gives respectability, I cannot fathom.
Posted by: Quentin George at April 3, 2004 at 07:49 AMThis site puzzled over the story a year ago, and has good links.
However, this has a troubling ending:
Inderfurth [one of the three Americans in the meeting] told The Guardian: “There was no suggestion for military force to be used. What we discussed was the need for a comprehensive political settlement to bring an end to the war in Afghanistan that has been going on for two decades and has been doing so much damage.”
Now, if the Americans were there in an official (or informally official?) capacity at all, it at least show the problem was being discussed. I lift this from the Guardian:
The three Americans at the Berlin meeting were Tom Simons, a former US ambassador to Pakistan, Karl "Rick" Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary of state for south Asian affairs, and Lee Coldren, who headed the office of Pakistan, Afghan and Bangladesh affairs in the state department until 1997.
Three former officials. No Colin Powell.
Oh, piss on my HTML, anyway.
Here is an encore:
The story in the Indian press is basically the Guardian piece.
Posted by: Tom Maguire at April 3, 2004 at 08:42 AMThere! Chew on it for awhile. Think a little. Don't let your stubby little hands touch the keyboard. Just take a breath, drink some koolaid from your sippy cup and have some more pudding. Good, hmm?
You're not coming on to me are you sortelli? Cos It's not that I'm not curious, but you know, with a WAR on all I haven't really got time for your offers of man-on-man action. But hey, I'm flattered.
Now, some drone mentioned "Irony" above, and that they had found the word at Dictionary.com. I'm all over "Irony", mein freund, 'cos it, you know, wins wars and shit. El Alamein was won with great throbbing drone-wangs full of plucky Allied irony.
You want a lesson in irony, spectators? Watch Lost in Space. Now ask yourselves: "How far did irony get Docor Smith, eh?" - The answer: not very far, Penny fucking Robinson!
Speaking of Clarke (which, girls, I remember was the topic before threw a little grit into your thunkin' parts), do you reaaaly think that a pissing competition between Clark e- professional career spook arsehole - and silver-spoon-raised Junior (and I say that with the greatest respect - I know he's all-gonads but he can come across as a dissembler - look it up in your Dictionary.com, tough guy), is gonna fly?
Who gives a shit how many inches wide the card on which the Pres hand-wrote the GLOWING PRAISE, in for his best buddy Clarke was? It's all about credibility, and Pilger is not gonna get you there. That much is fucking obvious. The letter was an example - Jesus!
People are rubes, and the leftie assholes who run the media know that you catch more rubes with sugar than with vinegar. A right, for those who care less, that we fought and died for them to have. Now that little fact is repleat with "irony". But not the kind I find very funny at all. And what's with you and "inches" anyway, "Lawrence"?
Posted by: Endgame at April 3, 2004 at 01:58 PMWow, why read so much homoeroticism into everything? No reason to project your hidden lusts into an argument when there's so much free gay pr0n out there, let's just go through this again. Grasp your crayon tightly and try to follow along.
Pilger is adored and endorsed by left-wing hacks for claiming Bush did too much before 9-11.
Clarke is adored and endorsed by left-wing hacks for claiming Bush did not do enough before 9-11.
Wacky, isn't it? A little bit... ironic. No? That's it. That is the sum of this post. Tongue in cheek. I can't speak for what you've crammed in your cheek, now, but understand that this isn't about Pilger becoming the Great White Hope of the Bush Administration. Neither Pilger or Clarke have any credibility. So the answer to your question about the great Clark e vs Junior pissing contest is: No.
Really, I'm sure you get it but you're just spewing crap to cause trouble. In fact, I'm getting a strong impression that you're another twitty little sheep in wolf's clothing shouting GRR WE ARE AT WAR LETZ KILL PPL GRRR LOLZ to shame us all by association. It's not working. Who's under that psuedonym, IXL with a spellchecker?
Posted by: Sortelli at April 3, 2004 at 03:16 PMWow, why read so much homoeroticism into everything?
Now who can't recognise irony,sweetcheeks?
Who's under that psuedonym, IXL with a spellchecker?
I know what a spellchecker is, but I haven't a clue what "IXL" means. Except that they make tinned FRUIT.
I get your wacky joke guys, I just think it's crap. Our allies are in trouble. I come here to see what people are thinking, and I get Pilger "jokes", shit "jokes" about Jesus and sortelli undressing me with his eyes (ditto). And this is it for you? You might like to look at how the 9/11 Commission is panning out for our guy, and then see if you are in the mood for jokes. Oh, and if you think I'm a (what was it sortelli?) a "twitty little sheep...[attemping]... to shame us all by association", well, suffice to say that you don't need much help in that area. What I'm saying is from the heart, and if that hurts your feelings, then damn, I'm sorry baby.
Posted by: Endgame at April 3, 2004 at 03:47 PMWow, Rambo, your real e-mail address is WorldWar03@hotmail.com?
AMERICA NEEDS YOU TO STFU.
Posted by: Sortelli at April 3, 2004 at 04:31 PMHoly crap, you must be Columbo. My addy is right there when you click on my on my tag. How did you figure it?
Can't you just accept there's never going to be anything between us?
Oh, and all joking aside, don't call me Rambo.
Let's come to an understanding, EG, this blog tends to have a lot of unserious (well, maybe mildly serious) posts, which is why I hang out here more than any other. That's why a snarky reference to the fact that a braindead lefty like John Pilger was contradicting Richard Clarke before he was the ABB crowd's latest poster boy is funny. Not serious.
Three comments in and tim's already pointing out that this is PILGER we're talking about.
Later in the game you reveal your inability to read by ranting about how not-serious referencing Pilger is, and how we evil bomb-lusting warmongerers are too soft on war for your tastes. and that we should just stop drawing attention to Clarke so that Bush can go for his jugular. Oh, and then you grunted something about how Clarke is super-credible despite contradicting himself and being unable to get his own facts straight in his precious precious book. I think somewhere in his Secret Arctic Base, Karl Rove is gnawing at his fingers and wishing you'd just shut the hell up already.
Basically, you're making yourself look really stupid when you say things like "I think Clark is doing this to Bush, and you soft-ons are helping him: 'yeah, Pilger is just the evidence we need to bring Clarke's house down' - Give me a break!"
I'm willing to give you a break; if you stop being stupid. Not padding your rebuttals with lame gay jokes would be a good place to start.
If you can't handle jokes about freakin' JUBES, maybe you just need to find a new place to point your browser and spit your flames? Hmm?
Posted by: Sortelli at April 3, 2004 at 06:19 PMRead the whole paragraph from Pilger:
For Washington, the real problem with the Taliban was not human rights; these were irrelevant. The Taliban regime simply did not have total control of Afghanistan: a fact that deterred investors from financing oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea, whose strategic position in relation to Russia and China and whose largely untapped fossil fuels are of crucial interest to the Americans.I'd normally dismiss Pilger, but the same argument is made in Crude Politics by Paul Sperry, the Washington Bureau Chief for WorldNetDaily. He is certainly no friend of left-liberals.
So Clarke was wrong, but the decision to invade Afghanistan was not to get al-Qaeda, but for pipeline rights. That doesn't make Bush right.
Posted by: Derek Gilbert at April 4, 2004 at 02:58 AMHey, don't diss my man Pilger! I've developed a strange respect for his conspirazoid theories. For example, look at who he blames for al Qaeda:
Bruce: While I'm no fan of Pilger's drivel, he may be more accurate in this respect than in others.
For example, on 06/13/97, Brzezinski gave an interview that is archived in the GWU National Security Archives. An excerpt:
INT: How did you interpret Soviet behavior in Afghanistan, such as the April revolution, the rise of... I mean, what did you think their long-term plans were, and what did you think should be done about it?
ZB: I told the President, about six months before the Soviets entered Afghanistan, that in my judgment I thought they would be going into Afghanistan. And I decided then, and I recommended to the President, that we shouldn't be passive.
INT: What happened?
ZB: We weren't passive.
INT: But at the time...
(Interruption)
Additionally, declassified Soviet documents also corraborate his assertions.
The facts establish that only a short
time after the April revolution of 1978, an
intense “undeclared war” was instigated
against Afghanistan. Bands of mercenaries,
financed with money from the CIA and
Beijing, have literally terrorized the civilian
population of that country. Pakistan has
become the principal staging ground for this
war. Here, more than twenty bases and fifty
support points have been created, at which
terrorist and military detachments are
trained under the direction of American,
Chinese, Pakistani and Egyptian instructors.
In just the period between July 1978 until
November 1979, the training of not less than
15,000 individuals was carried out there.
The Cold War History Project - PDF file from GWU beginning on page 125
Posted by: Barney at April 4, 2004 at 06:00 AM