Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm making a copy now for a friend. before I delete the video file from the hard drive, anyone else want a copy?

IM me and I'll see what I can do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,730 Posts
I don't need a copy of that but you don't happen to have a transcipt or recording of the interview Clarke did with Fox News' Jim Angle in 2002 where he praised Bush's terrorism plan and contradicted much of what he's said in recent interviews do you?

;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
902 Posts
I'll take the one where Condi Rice actually talks to the 9/11 panel under oath please. In fact...I'll take that one over her 60 minute interview cd. Aparently our honorable press doesn't violate the rules of exective privledge, if only Ed Bradley could swear her in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,753 Posts
Sullie said:
I don't need a copy of that but you don't happen to have a transcipt or recording of the interview Clarke did with Fox News' Jim Angle in 2002 where he praised Bush's terrorism plan and contradicted much of what he's said in recent interviews do you?

;)
Dick Clark's grapes must have gone sour. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
Sour grapes make good WHINE!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,730 Posts
l5gcw0b said:
I hope no one is naive enough to belive what is written in a resignation letter :roll:
Uh, huh, right. No-one stuck a gun to his head and made him go on and on - there was simply no need for it if he didn't feel this way. He has stated several times that he's retiring, so why lie then? Also, you know, you can resign gracefully without lying or burning your bridges.

My problem is, his written resignation is a lie but his interviews are the truth? Oh, but not his radio interview where he praised the administration earlier just his 60 minutes interview then right? I don't exactly know what I'm supposed to belive from this guy because the fact of the matter is, he's a liar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
what you say in a resignation later IS quite a different thing.

is it lying to say 'gee, mrs. cleaver, don't you look swell today?' ?

or is it being polite?

same thing here. when you terminate a job, you want to do so in a positve light, if at all possible. its just one of those things that adults know after they've been around the block a few times.

btw, a resignation letter isn't a sworn testimony under oath. its more like a glorified greeting card, if anything ;)

don't read too much into this.

signed, the beaver

[grin]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
JokerUNM said:
I'll take the one where Condi Rice actually talks to the 9/11 panel under oath please. In fact...I'll take that one over her 60 minute interview cd. Aparently our honorable press doesn't violate the rules of exective privledge, if only Ed Bradley could swear her in.
after seeing the 2nd 60min interview (rice), my gut feel is that her voice was shakey and her body language said "I'm lying - but I'm forced to".

I really tried to get a read - and it did seem her voice was more stressed than it should be. like she's between a rock and a hard place.

the excuse of 'well, no other SITTING security advisor has been made to testify before' doesn't fly. this is an exceptional situation and the american people want to get to the bottom of this.

of course all this stuff will come out AFTER november; but that's what the admin wants, of course. to delay the issues until after another election and then it might be too late.

had this not been an election year, I'm sure this 9/11 commission thing would have been handled differently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,730 Posts
He he he - I absolutely love trying to justify this lying. You can twist and turn this thing all you want - he lied in this letter, the radio interview or the 60 minutes segment - two of these tell one story the last a very different one - which one is it Mr. Clarke? In two story's (this letter and his interview) he's behind the president, the next he's not.

Being polite and lying are two different things. Why lie and say "you look nice Mrs. Cleaver" then in the first place instead of just saying "Hello, Mrs. Cleaver, it's nice to see you." The second statement is not a lie if you think June Cleaver looks like shit today but you really are glad to see her.

It's the same damn deal with this resignation letter. I have been around the block plenty, I've left several professional level jobs, some I loved but left for more money - others I absolutely hated the job, hated my boss, hated the company and just wanted out. In those particular cases, where I wanted out because I didn't like the job or the boss, I used the same type of resignation letter wording. "I'm leaving for a better opportunity, I gained a lot of valuable experience from this position, I want to make a smooth transition of my job duties to whomever will take them over, I'm available for questions after I leave and I appreciate the opportunity I had while here."

Those aren't lies - I did appreciate the opportunity they gave me and I did gain a lot of valuable experience, I did want to help the company when I took the job (whether I liked the company or not after I had come on board) and I did want nothing but a smooth transition after I left. But I did not lie in my letters and say "it was wonderful to work here, you were a great boss, I admire your skills as a supervisor, it pains me to leave here, I will miss working for you very much or I'm saddened to make this decision." It's very easy and simple to not lie, I really don't understand why anyone would feel compelled to lie when there's simply no call for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
Sullie said:
he lied in this letter, the radio interview or the 60 minutes segment - two of these tell one story the last a very different one - which one is it Mr. Clarke?
What, exactly, is the inconsistancy? I see nothing in that letter that contradicts anything he's said. The letter specifically praises Bush's actions on 9/11, which he has repeated. Notice that it says nothing about Bush's policy/actions before or after 9/11, with the specific exception of counter cyberterrorism. There is no mention of Bush's general performance or action on Al Qaeda or non-cyber terrorism. A glaring omission, really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,730 Posts
jhct said:
Sullie said:
he lied in this letter, the radio interview or the 60 minutes segment - two of these tell one story the last a very different one - which one is it Mr. Clarke?
What, exactly, is the inconsistancy? I see nothing in that letter that contradicts anything he's said. The letter specifically praises Bush's actions on 9/11, which he has repeated. Notice that it says nothing about Bush's policy/actions before or after 9/11, with the specific exception of counter cyberterrorism. There is no mention of Bush's general performance or action on Al Qaeda or non-cyber terrorism. A glaring omission, really.
The general inconsistancy is that he's said in interviews and in his book that Bush was fixated on Iraq and Sadam immediately after 9/11 instead of Bin Laden but all this is repeated in this thread: anyone watch 60 minutes tonight with Richard Clark? - no point in me rehashing that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
Sullie said:
The general inconsistancy is that he's said in interviews and in his book that Bush was fixated on Iraq and Sadam immediately after 9/11 instead of Bin Laden but all this is repeated in this thread http://www.clubb5.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=74384
Agreed, that's discussed in the other thread, but that's not what is in the letter. You said he either lied in the resignation letter you posted or his testimony/book, because you claim they are inconsistant. I'd like you to back up that claim with some example of testimony or parts of the book that contradict the letter you posted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,121 Posts
For some context on what it's like to write a letter of resignation to the President of the USA, here are 2 other letters I could find quickly. I don't think it's a stretch for anyone to consider that working for the President is an honor, whether political philosophies agree or disagree.

Christine Todd Whitman's resignation as EPA head

Harvey Pitt's resignation as SEC head

If anyone cares to understand Clarke's resignation letter in the light of other White House resignation letters, perhaps these will help. Perhaps the texts of other letters are available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,730 Posts
jhct said:



From this article in USA Today [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-24-clarke-whitehouse_x.htm


In a new book, Clarke accuses the administration of giving too little attention to the threat posed by al-Qaeda until the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But in the 2002 discussion with reporters, Clarke outlined a multi-pronged approach for confronting al-Qaeda that he said the White House had developed over several months leading up to the attacks.
Bush embraced a plan for the "rapid elimination" of al-Qaeda, shifting from the Clinton administration's policy of seeking to "roll back" the threat over several years, Clarke said at that earlier briefing.
Inconsistent, untruthful and an example given for you and again I'll say - it's all discussed and being hashed out in the other thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
Sullie said:
Is this enough or do you need more? Inconsistent, untruthful and an example given and again I'll say - it's all discussed and being hashed out in the other thread.
We can hash those things out in the other thread, but since you specifically introduced the letter here, I'd like to see you back it up with some facts. As I suspected, you offered nothing that contradicted what Clarke wrote in his resignation letter.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough above. You said "My problem is, his written resignation is a lie but his interviews are the truth?" Please show me some inconsistnacy between the two. So far you have not done that. Please back up your statement with some evidence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,730 Posts
jhct said:
Sullie said:
Is this enough or do you need more? Inconsistent, untruthful and an example given and again I'll say - it's all discussed and being hashed out in the other thread.
We can hash those things out in the other thread, but since you specifically introduced the letter here, I'd like to see you back it up with some facts. As I suspected, you offered nothing that contradicted what Clarke wrote in his resignation letter.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough above. You said "My problem is, his written resignation is a lie but his interviews are the truth?" Please show me some inconsistnacy between the two. So far you have not done that. Please back up your statement with some evidence.
And again we CONTINUE to discuss what is already being hashed out in another thread for the third time.

First of all, you cannot deny Clarke is praising the President for the job he is doing and specifically his actions on 9/11 from the letter provided. Hopefully I do not need to give a blow by blow, sentence by sentence, letter by letter, disection and perhaps a diagram chart explaning it.

Secondly you cannot deny his criticism of the President now:

(taken from CNN)
In the book, Clarke charged that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented if Bush and other leading figures in the administration had taken a more urgent interest in the al Qaeda threat prior to 9/11. He also said Bush, on the day after the attacks, demanded that Clarke find out if there was a connection between the al Qaeda plotters and the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, even though no evidence of a link existed.
Compare that to his interview in 2002:

(taken from his interview with Jim Angle)
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no — one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?

CLARKE: You got it. That's right.
So my point is, if he's so Goddamned concerned now, where is his concern in that letter? Why doesn't he say something to effect of "I leave this position in great concern for the direction you are taking in the war on terroism . . ." far from that point of view, his letter praises the President and he specifically mentions 9/11 in his praise in the letter and yet he specifically mentions 9/11 in his concerns now. What in the hell else do I need to provide to prove he's inconsistnent and untruthful?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,116 Posts
I've written a few resignation letters and I've never spelled out the reasons I was leaving the company in them. There's no doubt that there are certain inconsistencies in various statements Clark has made during his tenure, but if you can find a single political figure for which that would not be the case I'd love to know who they are. His testimonies need to be taken with a appropriately sized grain of salt like the statements from anyone in politics. If you're going to ignore the testimony of everyone who has made contradictory statements in their careers then you're ignoring everyone.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top