TheAgitator.com
Clancy-Perle Almost Smackdown
Tuesday, May 25th, 2004Not only does steadfast Republican and bestselling author Tom Clancy disapprove of the war with Iraq, he nearly kicked Richard Perle’s ass over it.
In discussing the Iraq war, both Clancy and Zinni singled out the Department of Defense for criticism. Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he “almost came to blows” with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time and a longtime advocate of the invasion.“He was saying how [Secretary of State] Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops,” Clancy said. “And I said, âLook …, heâs supposed to think that way!â And Perle didnât agree with me on that. People like that worry me.”
I hear that Perle actually agreed to a brawl with Clancy, but only if someone else did the actual fighting for him.
Hat tip: Liberty & Power.
That’s interesting.
On one hand, this is kind of surprising given that some of Clancy’s books read like they could be the neocon foreign policy guidebook.
On the other hand, one of his books (I forget which one) began with the assassination of Saddam (not named, but you know it was him) by an Iranian sleeper agent. Iran subsequently invades and annexes Iraq, forming the “United Islamic Republic”, and this, needless to say, causes problems.
Let’s not forget that when Clancy writes about war the details are mostly fiction. There is some factual basis, but mostly the product of his imagination.
However, when Bush and his administration deal with war, the details are….
… dammit. Nevermind.
Speaking of Powell, I can’t for the life of me understand how he stays in the Bush adminstration. From everything I see and read, Powell was the only sane voice leading up to the war, and everytime he made a suggestion he was either overruled, given less-than-factual information, or simply left out of the loop. Yet another reason for me to dislike the Bushies- the only member of the administration I respect, and he is constantly ignored, overruled, or left holding the bag.
Richard, you’re attempt here to make Powell into some kind of victim are a discredit to the man he is. Powell is no push-over and he was not left out of the decision making process.
Bush depends on having differing opinions in his cabinet. Without the diversity he would just have a bunch of “yes” men.
Disagreement and discussion do mean dissension and division.
do not mean
Well put Ms Dani.
I am certainly not trying to make Powell into a “victim”, he took the job and is free to leave whenever he wants. I just don’t understand why he does stay.
And Ms. Dani, I highly recomend you read the last few issues of Newsweek for some perspective on Powell’s voice in the administration. Powell urged resrtaint in going into Iraq and was ignored. He was the one who put his reputation on the line when telling the UN that we absolutely knew Sadam had WMDs and where they were,and looks kind of silly for that now. He urged Rummy and Bush to NOT waive the Geneva Convention for Al Queda members and was ignored, which lead, in part, to the abuses at Abu Ghraib. He told Rummy and Bush that we would need many more troops in Iraq after the major fighting, and was ignores. Powell proved to be right in all of these cases, yet the Adminstration ignored all of his suggestions.
I would vote for Powell for president if he ran, I respect the man. I just find it strange that his boss doesn’t.
Richard, you are making the assumption that Bush does not respect Powell because he chose not to heed his recommendations. That is not good deductive reasoning. You may tell me to eat dirt, but just because I don’t do it, doesn’t mean that I don’t respect you.
Presumption is dangerous ground and tends to flavor what you know to be facts. You should base your opinions on facts, not what you think might have been.
I decided to go point by point, which I hate to do because I don’t like reading other people’s disertations on this blog:
Richard said, “I highly recommend you read the last few issues of Newsweek for some perspective on Powell’s voice…” No. I don’t need Newsweek to tell me what I should think about Powell’s position of authority in the administration.
You said, “Powell urged restraint in going into Iraq”, yes, and we heeded. At some point we finally went in, but we heeded. What is your point? Sounds like Bush listened to Powell on this one.
You said “He was the one who put his reputation on the line”. He put the US reputation on the line first, and then his second.
You said “he looks kind of silly now”. WMD’s have been found. Now, who looks silly?
You said “which lead in part to Abu Ghraib prison abuses”. This is conjecture. You don’t know that those two are linked. Your inserting your opinion based on heresey.
You said “He said we needed more troops” So Bush was wrong on this one. Ooops. That doesn’t mean that Powell was disrespected or ignored. Bush just chose a different route.
The question is, if you respect the man and would vote for him for president, then why does he stay working with the current administration? Good question. I would submit that he is a man of principles and knows that Bush is also. People who have differing opinions can and SHOULD work together if they can do it in an adult way. You think Kerry is going to surround himself with people he disagrees with? Shaah.
1) You don’t need Newsweek to tell you what to think, I was simply giving you a tip of a news source that has explored these issues in detail. Read the NEWS articles and draw your own conclusions.
2) We certainly were NOT hesitant about going into Iraq.
3)Okay, US rep first, his second. It was still wrong info, and Powell’s the one wjo delivered it.
4)1 container of sarin gas does not make WMDs found.
5) I did not say the decision to waive Geneva Convention rights by Rummy and Bush dirictly CAUSED Abu Gharig abuses, but the Newsweek article made a pretty good case that the waiving of those rights for Al Queda lead to the atmosphere that permited them to happen. Powell was against waiving those rights.
And Kerry what Kerry would or would not do has nothing to do with my opinion of the current administration.
Richard,
We hesitated for 13 years. If we had waited that long to join WWII, we’d all be speaking Japanese. How much more hesitant did you want to be?
The evidence that Powell gave to the UN was true at the time it was presented, meaning that everyone involved knew it to be true. Besides, the UN still declined to act, even WITH the evidence. They didn’t find out until later that it might have been erroneous info.
How much WMD’s must be found before Bush can be cleared of wrong-doing in your eyes?
I wish I could speak Japanese - I do so love a good haiku.
“The evidence that Powell gave to the UN was true at the time it was presented, meaning that everyone involved knew it to be true.”
No it fucking well was not true.
If Bush goes up in front of the UN, and says little pink elephants are invading from Hell, and he *really* *knows* that it’s true, it doesn’t make it true.
Ms. Dani-
As far as “hesitating for 13 years”, you’re telling me that you think we should have gone into Iraq in, say, 1996? I don’t recall people on either side of the aisle advocating that in the 90’s. Perhaps we should have gone in in February, 2001? Bush was leader then, and it had been 10 years of “hesitating” by your definition. But the American people wouldn’t have gone for it then. After 9/11, Bush had the excuse he needed, and began planning for war.
As far as how much WMDs must be found for me to give Bush a pass, I would say enough to have actually been a DIRECT threat to us. We were told by the Administration that Sadam and his WMDs were a imminent threat, and that is why we had to go into Iraq NOW. Well, one canister found does not make an imminent threat.
And for the record, I’m not one of these people who is obsessed by the WMD argument. I think there were valid reasons for going to war, and good cases to be made. Too bad Bush has so little faith in his people that he never tried to make any of THOSE arguments.
Exactly. We needed to do something about Saddam and 9/11 gave us a great big giant shove. Is there anything wrong with that? But we did hesitate.
Would one canister found onboard your flight to your mom’s house been enough?
Which case would you have supported? Isn’t that a matter of semantics, one way or another, we needed to go there?
No, it’s not a matter of semantics. We the people, from whom the President’s power is derived from, were at the least misinformed, and at the worst, lied to.
Personally, I would not have supported the war at all, and nothing I have seen now that we have gone in has convinced me. I think some good things may come out of it, and have, but IMO, those gains do not justify the price in blood and dollars we are paying.
And, no, one canister of ricin on my flight is not enough to justify invading a country. If you could show me that Sadam’s regime obtained the ricin, snuck into our country, and targeted our plane, all directed by Sadam’s government, then yes, I would support going into his country. At THAT point, Iraq would have attacked us, and would deserve retribution. Same reason I have no problem with the war in Afganistan.
As I’ve said (and cited) on previous threads, before 9/11, Powell said several times that containment was working just fine on Sadam, and there was no reason to change the policy.
Richard,
Grow the F up.
No one misinformed or lied to you. You sat there like a big, dumb-ass Labrador Retriever, lapping up whatever was served to you without thinking. And you’re still doing the same thing.
Stop blaming everyone else for your woeful inadequacies.
The Middle East, including Iraq is crawling with pervs doing their level-best to acquire a nuke so they can blow up Baltimore, and you’re whining about a fictional canister of ricin.
You have no credibility.
Paul-
Shut the fuck up.
You know nothing about what information I get, how much I get, or where I get it from.
How is disagreeing with the war in Iraq blaming anyone for my “woeful inadequacies”? First off you have no idea if I have any inadequcies at all, and secondly, WHAT A DUMB FUCKING THING TO SAY!
Ms Dani,
Could you explain, and perhaps justify the claim, that “We needed to do something about Saddam “?
What was the need? Why was it ours?
We won’t even go into the relationship you imply between 9/11 and Saddam, just kindly explain your assertion about there being a need, and it being ours.
Shirley Knott
OK, everybody — chew on this.
Do follow the referenced link to ABC News — hardly a neocon propaganda site — and read BOTH pages.
Looks like a definite link between Al Quada and Iraq, before the war, to me.
Oops — wrong link above:
Try this one.
Sorry Rich, but by that logic we should invade say, Buffalo. The link you provided simply showed as Al Queda operative was physically in Iraq, had to get medical treatment, and “acquiring weapons from Iraqi intelligence officials.”
Not sure what the last line means by “weapons”. Knives, pistols, machine guns, missles? Too vague, and still a weak conection. There were Al Queda operatives in Buffalo, they may have had to visit a hospital, and what if they tried to buy a gun from a dirty cop? INVADE BUFFALO!!
I’m obviously being a little silly there, but I think you’ll get the point I’m making.
Richard:
Then show me where the Saddam & Sons regime removed and/or disciplined those intelligence officials for their association with Zarqawi — hardly a low-level terrorist operative that one can afford to ignore, if a nation opposes terrorism.
You are stretching this to the extreme to assume that these officials were just corrupt cops.
To change my mind, prove to me that these were not legitimate officials of the regime, acting in support of their government — a government that, unlike the government of Buffalo (or the government of New York, or the United States government, for that matter), has a history of supporting Islamofascist terrorism, and therefore would have a motive for using its own officials and infrastructure in supporting more of the same.
And, if the regime was standing in opposition to his activities (in northern Iraq, and elsewhere) … why did they let Zarqawi freely move within Iraq, interact with intelligence officials, and establish sleeper cells there?
Your assertions stretch far beyond a reasonable doubt. This still looks like a SIGNIFICANT connection between Al Quada and Saddam & Sons.
Unfortuantely Rich, my skills run more to towards real estate and banking than to international intelligence, so I’m afraid I won’t be going to Iraq to investigate.
As far as ” … why did they let Zarqawi freely move within Iraq, interact with intelligence officials, and establish sleeper cells there?” my answer is, “who knows?” Bush loves to remind us that Sadam was a “madman”, and there is no predicting the actions of madmen, right?
I don’t think the article said if he was moving “freely” in Iraq or not. It also did not say if the intelligence officials were on orders from Sadam or not, or if Sadam even knew. If Sadam’s regime was buddies with Al Queda, why was Zarqawi setting up sleeper cells in Sadam’s country?
To many ifs, whys and maybes to justify to me 100 billion dollars of tax money and close to 1000 US soldiers lives lost (so far).
Rich Casebolt,
“And, if the regime was standing in opposition to his activities (in northern Iraq, and elsewhere) … why did they let Zarqawi freely move within Iraq, interact with intelligence officials, and establish sleeper cells there?”
He wasn’t operating freely. If he was operating freely, he wouldn’t have set up his base in Kurdish-controlled Northern Iraq.
It’s one thing to move around as an individual. It’s another thing entirely to operate a terrorist group. He wasn’t able to operate his terrorist group freely in Iraq, just outside of Saddam’s territory.
Further, I’m not sure why he’d be setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad if he was working with Saddam. You generally don’t set up sleeper cells in friendly territory. You set them up in hostile territory. That’s why they have to be sleepers, rather than overt.
Jon H.:
In order for him to avoid arrest, the regime had to at least tolerate his presence in Baghdad — and they sure didn’t didn’t treat him the way they normally treated adversaries, especially ones they considered threats.
As for those sleeper cells — consider that the cells may have not been intended to stay in Baghdad; it is plausible that Baghdad was the staging point for their deployment to other nations. Acquiring weapons (concealable weapons for the sleepers to take with them, or other weapons to be shipped out later) in support of such efforts would be consistent.
Richard — since we agree Saddam is a madman, then why should he have ever been trusted after the first Gulf War with even the conventional forces he still had … much less continue to tolerate his efforts to acquire WMD?
IMO, the reason behind this tolerance is that amalgam of idealism and realpolitik called “the international community”, who kept telling us that war is NEVER the answer* … unless you already have thousands of dead in your streets.
That philosophy not only kept dictators in power, it contributed to our reliance upon proxies over the years to substitute for the direct use of American force.
-
*In the eyes of the diplomat, it also is NEVER the answer when an international public servant can make big bucks from “relief” efforts … or elevate your nation’s status “on the cheap” by keeping a more successful nation vulnerable to damage.
BTW, the reason I prefer direct American force to proxies is that it is more capable of producing decisive solutions to conflicts, when exercised with resolve — becuase we have more control over the process.
weight loss
lose weight fast
fast weight loss
weight loss supplements
weight loss programs
http://4idiots.pedronetwork.com
divorce
divorce advice
cheating spouse
infidelity
surviving infidelity
http://drreena.pedronetwork.com
find perple
people finder
wev detective
detective
best people finder
find anything
web detectives
web detective search
wev detective criminal records online
find sex offenders
locate military records
complete criminlal records
background checks
http://onlinedetective.sweetbuyz.com
snowboarding
snowboard
snowboards
snowboard gear
snowboard boots snowboarding tricks
snowboard accessories
how to snowbaord
snowboarding secrets
http://snowboardingsecrets.sweetbuyz.com
romance
relationships
relationship advice
matchmaking
find your match
http://108secrets.pedronetwork.com
Vertical jump
plyometric exercises
how to jump higher
slam dunk
vertical leap
Plyometric Drills
exercises to jump higher
learn to dunk
http://goupstrong.sweetbuyz.com
spyware
adware
free spyware
remove spyware
remove adware
free spyware remover
free spyware removal
spyware removal
spyware remover
anti spyware
adware removal
spyware eliminator
spyware blocker
adware blocker
adware remover
adware removal
spyware killer
removing spyware
removing adware
what is spyware
what is adware
http://Spyware-Adware-Remover.sweetbuyz.com
adware
malware
pop-ups
spyware
keyloggers
hijacking
parasites
http://securepc.kj7k.com
movie downloads
internet movies
streaming movies
free moviez
internet movies
http://download-movies.bargainfront.com
people finder
people search
background checks
search people
people finder free
http://people-finder.crpublish.com
credit cards
credit card
merchant account
credit card processing
http://charge.sweetbuyz.com
hot rods
hot rod
hot rods for sale
hot rod magazine
hot rod parts
hot rod lincoln
http://hot-rods.sweetbuyz.com
burnlounge
burn lounge
burn lounge music
burnlounge music
burnlounge mp3
burn lounge mp3
burn lounge music downloads
burnlounge music downloads
burnlounge software
burn lounge software
burnlounge free
burn lounge free
free burnlounge
free burn lounge
http://burnlounge.sweetbuyz.com
running
people running
speed training
run
trining running
speed
faster
drill for speed training
running training prograom
quickness drills
running program
running workouts
increase running speed
speed enhancement
http://speedenhancement.sweetbuyz.com
acne
skin care
pimples
natural skin care
acne treatment
zits
skin
http://acne-cured.teddbot.com