Robert's Stochastic thoughts
Asymptotically we'll all be dead
HOME
Feed
e-mail me
Angry Bear
Brad De Long's Semi Daily Journal
no more mister nice blog
Atrios
Mark Thoma
Matthew Yglesias
Michael Froomkin
Jim Henley
Glenn Greenwald
A Fistful of Euros
Benen and Hilzoy
Norwegianity
Jon Swift
my brother in law
formerly meta&meta
I Hans
Sour Grapes
fafblog:glofish central
voracious rationalist
archives
7/1/02 - 8/1/02
10/1/02 - 11/1/02
12/1/02 - 1/1/03
1/1/03 - 2/1/03
3/1/03 - 4/1/03
4/1/03 - 5/1/03
5/1/03 - 6/1/03
6/1/03 - 7/1/03
9/1/03 - 10/1/03
10/1/03 - 11/1/03
11/1/03 - 12/1/03
12/1/03 - 1/1/04
1/1/04 - 2/1/04
2/1/04 - 3/1/04
3/1/04 - 4/1/04
4/1/04 - 5/1/04
5/1/04 - 6/1/04
6/1/04 - 7/1/04
7/1/04 - 8/1/04
8/1/04 - 9/1/04
9/1/04 - 10/1/04
10/1/04 - 11/1/04
11/1/04 - 12/1/04
12/1/04 - 1/1/05
1/1/05 - 2/1/05
2/1/05 - 3/1/05
3/1/05 - 4/1/05
4/1/05 - 5/1/05
5/1/05 - 6/1/05
6/1/05 - 7/1/05
7/1/05 - 8/1/05
8/1/05 - 9/1/05
9/1/05 - 10/1/05
10/1/05 - 11/1/05
11/1/05 - 12/1/05
12/1/05 - 1/1/06
1/1/06 - 2/1/06
2/1/06 - 3/1/06
3/1/06 - 4/1/06
4/1/06 - 5/1/06
5/1/06 - 6/1/06
6/1/06 - 7/1/06
7/1/06 - 8/1/06
8/1/06 - 9/1/06
9/1/06 - 10/1/06
10/1/06 - 11/1/06
11/1/06 - 12/1/06
12/1/06 - 1/1/07
1/1/07 - 2/1/07
2/1/07 - 3/1/07
3/1/07 - 4/1/07
4/1/07 - 5/1/07
5/1/07 - 6/1/07
6/1/07 - 7/1/07
7/1/07 - 8/1/07
8/1/07 - 9/1/07
9/1/07 - 10/1/07
10/1/07 - 11/1/07
11/1/07 - 12/1/07
12/1/07 - 1/1/08
1/1/08 - 2/1/08
2/1/08 - 3/1/08
3/1/08 - 4/1/08
4/1/08 - 5/1/08
5/1/08 - 6/1/08
6/1/08 - 7/1/08
7/1/08 - 8/1/08
8/1/08 - 9/1/08
9/1/08 - 10/1/08
10/1/08 - 11/1/08
11/1/08 - 12/1/08
12/1/08 - 1/1/09
1/1/09 - 2/1/09
2/1/09 - 3/1/09
3/1/09 - 4/1/09
4/1/09 - 5/1/09
5/1/09 - 6/1/09
6/1/09 - 7/1/09
7/1/09 - 8/1/09
8/1/09 - 9/1/09
9/1/09 - 10/1/09
10/1/09 - 11/1/09
11/1/09 - 12/1/09
12/1/09 - 1/1/10
1/1/10 - 2/1/10
2/1/10 - 3/1/10
3/1/10 - 4/1/10
4/1/10 - 5/1/10
5/1/10 - 6/1/10
6/1/10 - 7/1/10
7/1/10 - 8/1/10
8/1/10 - 9/1/10
9/1/10 - 10/1/10
10/1/10 - 11/1/10
11/1/10 - 12/1/10
12/1/10 - 1/1/11
1/1/11 - 2/1/11
2/1/11 - 3/1/11
3/1/11 - 4/1/11
4/1/11 - 5/1/11
5/1/11 - 6/1/11
6/1/11 - 7/1/11
7/1/11 - 8/1/11
8/1/11 - 9/1/11
9/1/11 - 10/1/11
10/1/11 - 11/1/11
11/1/11 - 12/1/11
12/1/11 - 1/1/12
1/1/12 - 2/1/12
2/1/12 - 3/1/12
3/1/12 - 4/1/12
4/1/12 - 5/1/12
5/1/12 - 6/1/12
6/1/12 - 7/1/12
7/1/12 - 8/1/12
8/1/12 - 9/1/12
9/1/12 - 10/1/12
10/1/12 - 11/1/12
11/1/12 - 12/1/12
12/1/12 - 1/1/13
1/1/13 - 2/1/13
2/1/13 - 3/1/13
3/1/13 - 4/1/13
4/1/13 - 5/1/13
5/1/13 - 6/1/13
6/1/13 - 7/1/13
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Clarke part XXXI
Clarke Vs Easterbrook
Easterbrook writes
"With the Richard Clarke flap and the 9/11 Commission, recriminations have been reduced to the two parties mutually complaining that their opponents failed to know the future."
Well actually Clarke complains that others in the Bush administration didn't know the past and worse that they "knew" things that just weren't true about the past, that is, that Iraq was behind both world trade center attacks. Also see below. Clarke's complaint is that the Bush administration did not do in 2001 what the Clinton administration had done in 1999 which Clarke argued before 9/11 should be done again. Clarke is not demanding perfection. He is demanding a president as competent as Clinton.
Not to be self centered but my Clarke part I (6:10:29 PM EST) quoted exactly the passage in Clarke's 60 minutes interview which the Bush administration, Kristol and Easterbrook *still* refuse to consider. This is the accusation which could end Bush's career. Not that Bush was imperfect but rather that he was no where near as good as Clinton.
Unlike istol (see below) Easterbrook is telling the truth. Indeed it is true that the debate has "been reduced to the two parties mutually complaining that their opponents failed to know the future". However the debate has been so reduced by people, such as Easterbrook and Kristol, who choose to ignore what Clarke actually said.
It is very easy to win a debate if you are allowed to quote the other guy skipping his substantive arguments.
Given how right Clarke is, this is not enough to enable the Bush administration to win the debate with Clarke, even though they can distort the meaning of statements by declassifying and quoting out of context and then prosecute Clarke if he adds the context back.
Comments:
Post a Comment
